(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
[cultural heritage] I'm not saying it's a lie, I'm just saying that when something is repeated enough times, it often turns out to be an indisputable truth. This is how it has become with the concept of "the Christian cultural heritage" as well. As a bewitching mantra, it is repeated – in reader contributions and political debates about the state church and purpose clauses, in school curricula and party speeches – from Hernes to Høybråten. The Christian cultural heritage, our Christian cultural heritage, the very foundation of modern Norway is founded on.
The use of the term gives the impression of something that has always been there, something static and unchanging – an unbroken line throughout history – that we inherit from our ancestors. And in contrast to a tradition, which we have now learned that is not necessarily undividedly positive – compare genital mutilation – a heirloom must by definition be valuable. The Christian cultural heritage appears as such a gift from the past, which gives us important knowledge about ourselves. Yes, the use of terms creates the impression that this is almost the most important knowledge for understanding what Norway has been, is – and perhaps should continue to be. Without this anchoring, we do not know who we are and must be.
And just as we do not make mini skirts of the legacy after grandmother, we cannot mingle with our Christian heritage.
For "if we tear Christianity out of our cultural heritage, we get a poor legacy" as KrF's deputy leader Dagrun Eriksen declared in Ny Tid in one of the many debates that have taken place about Christian purpose clauses. Eriksen is right in the sense that religion and culture have necessarily been closely intertwined in Norway. Here, religion has been a power factor in society for about a thousand years – for almost 500 of these as a state religion. And although not everything that has taken place throughout Norway's history has its roots in Christianity, it goes without saying that it has left its mark on most of the areas of life under such conditions. For some as a blessing and support in life, for others as an obvious straitjacket.
At the same time, the use of the term creates the impression that we are talking about one cultural heritage in a specific singular form. It hides that there has never been a time when society has been harmonious and homogeneous Christian, a kind of "Norwegian, Christian golden age" before demanding humanists and Muslims appeared. For as far as we know, there have always been oppositional thoughts – be it in opposition to religious beliefs or to authority figures. And there is a long tradition of free thinking in Norway – both within and outside a Christian framework, both in the cities and up the valleys.
The fight against a denominational religion, for example, is not as new as it may seem. As early as 1818, a consul Isaach Isaachsen put forward a proposal in the Storting to introduce modern, dogmatic religious textbooks in the alms school (the proposal admittedly received only one vote.) And in 1821, a proposal for a new church law was made – anonymously. The bill argued for full religious freedom and the abolition of all coercive laws related to baptism, confirmation, communion and public holidays. The motivation was that the priests were the worst enemies of the Enlightenment for which boundaries had to be set.
On the whole, the concept of cultural heritage covers the conflicts that have existed around religion – and especially religious legislation – throughout history. The term undercommunicates how society has constantly been in constant change, partly due to such conflicts and struggles. Not least, it hides how Christianity itself has been in constant change.
But even if one is critical of the use of the concept of cultural heritage, it does not mean that one is critical of all contributions from Christian tradition. For example, I am very happy that Protestant Christianity's emphasis on the Bible as the basis for true Christianity made reading instruction important and thus laid the foundation for most Norwegians to learn to read and write.
This reading of the Bible today makes it possible for opposition voices to question, for example, concepts such as "the Christian cultural heritage".
